OP79 Gene Expression Profiling In The Diagnosis Of Aggressive Large B Cell Lymphoma: An Early Exploratory Economic Evaluation

Abstract

IntroductionThe addition of gene expression profiles (GEP) to the current clinicopathological diagnosis of aggressive large B cell lymphomas may lead to the reclassification of patients, treatment changes and improved outcomes. A GEP test is in development using TempoSeq technology to distinguish Burkitt Lymphoma (BL) and Primary Mediastinal Large B Cell lymphoma (PMBCL) from Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL). This study aims to inform developers about the potential impact of the test on costs and health outcomes, and pricing and evidence generation strategies.MethodsDecision models compared current diagnosis with current plus GEP signatures over a lifetime horizon using a UK health and social care perspective. Inputs were taken from the literature and based on assumptions. Threshold estimates were made of the maximum price of the test and impact of incorrect disease classification using a threshold of GDP30,000 (USD37,155) per Quality Adjusted Life year (QALY). One way sensitivity analysis was conducted.ResultsAt base case values the BL signature delivers incremental QALYs of 0.0249 at an additional cost per patient of GBP508 (USD629). This results in a net monetary benefit (NMB) of GBP239 (USD296). The PMBCL signature delivers 0.0011 QALYs, a cost saving of GBP202 (USD250) and an NMB of GBP236 (USD292). The maximum threshold price for a combined test to be cost effective is GBP776 (USD961) (base case GBP400 (USD495)). Results are sensitive to cost differences in first line treatments and impact of false diagnoses.ConclusionsA combined test could be cost-effective in a UK context at a price around GBP750 (USD929). The developers can use this estimate to inform return on investment calculations. The number of patients who were reclassified as a result of the addition of GEP in our model was taken from small retrospective studies and the impact of false diagnoses was based on limited evidence. If the developers choose to proceed with the development, these aspects should be incorporated in evidence generation strategies.